Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 741 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 74 | 50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74) | 50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74) | 51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72) | 0.791 |
gender | 74 | 0.802 | |||
f | 51 (69%) | 25 (68%) | 26 (70%) | ||
m | 23 (31%) | 12 (32%) | 11 (30%) | ||
occupation | 74 | 0.884 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 7 (9.5%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
other | 2 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
part_time | 14 (19%) | 7 (19%) | 7 (19%) | ||
retired | 15 (20%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
self_employ | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (30%) | 12 (32%) | 10 (27%) | ||
marital | 74 | 0.769 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
divore | 9 (12%) | 6 (16%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
married | 16 (22%) | 7 (19%) | 9 (24%) | ||
none | 42 (57%) | 21 (57%) | 21 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
edu | 74 | 0.954 | |||
bachelor | 22 (30%) | 9 (24%) | 13 (35%) | ||
diploma | 13 (18%) | 8 (22%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 8 (11%) | 4 (11%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (20%) | 8 (22%) | 7 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
fam_income | 74 | 0.932 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.4%) | 2 (5.4%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
20001_above | 12 (16%) | 6 (16%) | 6 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 10 (14%) | 7 (19%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (16%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (9.5%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (9.5%) | 3 (8.1%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 74 | 64 (86%) | 33 (89%) | 31 (84%) | 0.496 |
onset_duration | 74 | 15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56) | 16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56) | 14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35) | 0.324 |
onset_age | 74 | 35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64) | 33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58) | 37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64) | 0.297 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 741 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 74 | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 0.850 |
recovery_stage_b | 74 | 18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23) | 17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23) | 18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23) | 0.825 |
ras_confidence | 74 | 30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43) | 29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43) | 0.344 |
ras_willingness | 74 | 12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15) | 12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15) | 0.346 |
ras_goal | 74 | 17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24) | 0.818 |
ras_reliance | 74 | 13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18) | 13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20) | 0.537 |
ras_domination | 74 | 9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15) | 9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14) | 0.048 |
symptom | 74 | 30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56) | 31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52) | 29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56) | 0.334 |
slof_work | 74 | 22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30) | 22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30) | 0.833 |
slof_relationship | 74 | 25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35) | 26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.660 |
satisfaction | 74 | 20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32) | 19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29) | 22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32) | 0.050 |
mhc_emotional | 74 | 11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17) | 11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18) | 0.266 |
mhc_social | 74 | 14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30) | 14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26) | 0.643 |
mhc_psychological | 74 | 22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36) | 21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36) | 22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 0.460 |
resilisnce | 74 | 16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27) | 16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24) | 16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27) | 0.576 |
social_provision | 74 | 13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20) | 13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20) | 14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20) | 0.214 |
els_value_living | 74 | 17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25) | 16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22) | 17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.060 |
els_life_fulfill | 74 | 12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20) | 11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20) | 0.008 |
els | 74 | 30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45) | 28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36) | 31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45) | 0.010 |
social_connect | 74 | 27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48) | 27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45) | 26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48) | 0.443 |
shs_agency | 74 | 14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21) | 15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24) | 0.233 |
shs_pathway | 74 | 16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24) | 16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24) | 17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23) | 0.270 |
shs | 74 | 31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47) | 29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45) | 32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47) | 0.224 |
esteem | 74 | 12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18) | 12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16) | 0.196 |
mlq_search | 74 | 14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 0.862 |
mlq_presence | 74 | 13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21) | 13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20) | 13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 0.866 |
mlq | 74 | 28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40) | 28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42) | 0.847 |
empower | 74 | 19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28) | 19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28) | 0.337 |
ismi_resistance | 74 | 14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19) | 15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 0.266 |
ismi_discrimation | 74 | 11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 0.009 |
sss_affective | 74 | 9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18) | 9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18) | 0.246 |
sss_behavior | 74 | 9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.104 |
sss_cognitive | 74 | 8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.449 |
sss | 74 | 27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54) | 29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54) | 26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54) | 0.202 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.199 | 2.72, 3.50 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.054 | 0.281 | -0.497, 0.605 | 0.848 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.161 | 0.287 | -0.401, 0.724 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.169 | 0.410 | -0.635, 0.973 | 0.681 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.439 | 17.1, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.135 | 0.620 | -1.08, 1.35 | 0.828 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.383 | 0.602 | -1.56, 0.796 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.880 | 0.860 | -0.806, 2.57 | 0.311 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.821 | 28.3, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 1.161 | -1.22, 3.33 | 0.367 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.317 | 0.816 | -1.28, 1.92 | 0.700 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.300 | 1.168 | -1.99, 2.59 | 0.798 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.328 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.432 | 0.464 | -0.476, 1.34 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.631 | 0.320 | -1.26, -0.003 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.449 | 0.458 | -0.449, 1.35 | 0.333 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.516 | 16.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.162 | 0.729 | -1.27, 1.59 | 0.825 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.912 | 0.551 | -1.99, 0.168 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 0.789 | -0.061, 3.03 | 0.066 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.449 | 12.1, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.405 | 0.635 | -0.840, 1.65 | 0.525 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.453 | 0.407 | -0.345, 1.25 | 0.272 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.631 | 0.583 | -0.512, 1.77 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.367 | 9.79, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.519 | -2.07, -0.037 | 0.045 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.632 | 0.469 | -1.55, 0.288 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.43 | 0.671 | 0.113, 2.74 | 0.039 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.2 | 1.609 | 28.1, 34.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.22 | 2.275 | -6.67, 2.24 | 0.333 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 1.182 | -2.26, 2.37 | 0.961 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.667 | 1.693 | -3.98, 2.65 | 0.695 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.812 | 21.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.243 | 1.149 | -2.01, 2.49 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.724 | 0.619 | -1.94, 0.489 | 0.249 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.595 | 0.886 | -2.33, 1.14 | 0.506 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.5 | 0.981 | 23.6, 27.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.622 | 1.387 | -2.10, 3.34 | 0.655 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.898 | -2.82, 0.706 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.604 | 1.286 | -1.92, 3.12 | 0.641 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 1.139 | 17.0, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.11 | 1.610 | -0.048, 6.26 | 0.057 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.748 | 1.181 | -1.57, 3.06 | 0.529 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.26 | 1.690 | -4.57, 2.05 | 0.461 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.625 | 9.48, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.883 | -0.731, 2.73 | 0.261 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.485 | 0.541 | -0.575, 1.54 | 0.376 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.17 | 0.774 | -2.68, 0.352 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.930 | 13.3, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.595 | 1.316 | -3.17, 1.98 | 0.652 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.903 | -0.688, 2.85 | 0.237 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.54 | 1.293 | -4.07, 0.994 | 0.241 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 1.048 | 19.7, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 1.482 | -1.85, 3.96 | 0.479 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.643 | 1.022 | -1.36, 2.65 | 0.532 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.71 | 1.463 | -4.57, 1.16 | 0.250 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.713 | 14.9, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.595 | 1.008 | -1.38, 2.57 | 0.557 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.161 | 0.719 | -1.25, 1.57 | 0.824 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.364 | 1.029 | -1.65, 2.38 | 0.725 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.497 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.865 | 0.703 | -0.514, 2.24 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.938 | 0.557 | -2.03, 0.153 | 0.099 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.864 | 0.796 | -0.697, 2.43 | 0.283 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.477 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 0.674 | -0.051, 2.59 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.276 | 0.448 | -0.603, 1.15 | 0.542 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.205 | 0.642 | -1.46, 1.05 | 0.751 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.508 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 0.718 | 0.620, 3.43 | 0.006 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.917 | 0.487 | -0.039, 1.87 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.926 | 0.698 | -2.29, 0.441 | 0.191 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.080 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.884 | 26.7, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.30 | 1.250 | 0.846, 5.75 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.770 | -0.342, 2.67 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.09 | 1.102 | -3.25, 1.07 | 0.327 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.074 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 1.558 | 24.9, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.70 | 2.204 | -6.02, 2.62 | 0.442 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.757 | 1.144 | -1.48, 3.00 | 0.511 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.931 | 1.637 | -4.14, 2.28 | 0.573 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.813 | 12.2, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.38 | 1.149 | -0.874, 3.63 | 0.234 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.290 | 0.772 | -1.22, 1.80 | 0.709 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.414 | 1.106 | -1.75, 2.58 | 0.710 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.651 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.920 | -0.777, 2.83 | 0.268 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 0.590 | -0.785, 1.53 | 0.532 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.422 | 0.845 | -2.08, 1.23 | 0.620 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.381 | 27.2, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.41 | 1.953 | -1.42, 6.23 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 1.234 | -1.76, 3.08 | 0.594 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.007 | 1.767 | -3.46, 3.47 | 0.997 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.234 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.459 | 0.331 | -1.11, 0.189 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.155 | 0.352 | -0.534, 0.845 | 0.661 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.228 | 0.502 | -0.757, 1.21 | 0.653 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.552 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.135 | 0.781 | -1.40, 1.67 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.394 | 0.661 | -1.69, 0.902 | 0.554 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.383 | 0.946 | -1.47, 2.24 | 0.687 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.660 | 12.1, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.162 | 0.934 | -1.67, 1.99 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.080 | 0.732 | -1.51, 1.35 | 0.913 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.190 | 1.047 | -1.86, 2.24 | 0.856 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.098 | 26.1, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.297 | 1.552 | -2.75, 3.34 | 0.849 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.474 | 1.251 | -2.93, 1.98 | 0.706 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.562 | 1.789 | -2.95, 4.07 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.656 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.919 | 0.928 | -0.899, 2.74 | 0.325 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.251 | 0.580 | -1.39, 0.887 | 0.668 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.434 | 0.831 | -2.06, 1.19 | 0.604 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.418 | 13.5, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.703 | 0.591 | -0.455, 1.86 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.168 | 0.555 | -0.919, 1.25 | 0.764 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.373 | 0.793 | -1.93, 1.18 | 0.640 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.513 | 11.2, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.92 | 0.726 | -3.34, -0.497 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.509 | 0.499 | -1.49, 0.469 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.949 | 0.714 | -0.451, 2.35 | 0.191 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.066 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.603 | 9.25, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 0.852 | -2.70, 0.643 | 0.232 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.225 | 0.504 | -0.762, 1.21 | 0.657 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 0.721 | -2.50, 0.330 | 0.140 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.624 | 9.05, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.51 | 0.882 | -3.24, 0.216 | 0.090 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.248 | 0.618 | -1.46, 0.963 | 0.690 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.434 | 0.884 | -2.17, 1.30 | 0.626 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.59 | 0.638 | 7.34, 9.84 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.703 | 0.902 | -2.47, 1.07 | 0.438 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.508 | 0.031, 2.02 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.81 | 0.728 | -3.23, -0.380 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.732 | 25.9, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.24 | 2.449 | -8.04, 1.56 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 1.300 | -1.47, 3.62 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.35 | 1.862 | -7.00, 0.298 | 0.079 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(107) = 15.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.60], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(107) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.97], t(107) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.81], t(107) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.80], t(107) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.57], t(107) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.28, 31.50], t(107) = 36.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(107) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.92], t(107) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(107) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.28, 12.56], t(107) = 36.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(107) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -3.45e-03], t(107) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.72e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.35], t(107) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(107) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(107) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.03], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(107) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(107) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.25], t(107) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.77], t(107) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.79, 11.23], t(107) = 28.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(107) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(107) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.11, 2.74], t(107) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.40], t(107) = 19.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(107) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.37], t(107) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 5.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-3.98, 2.65], t(107) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(107) = 27.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(107) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.49], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(107) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.59, 27.44], t(107) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.10, 3.34], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.71], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.12], t(107) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.98, 21.45], t(107) = 16.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 6.26], t(107) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.89])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.06], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.57, 2.05], t(107) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(107) = 17.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(107) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(107) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(107) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.99], t(107) = 16.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(107) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.85], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-4.07, 0.99], t(107) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.70, 23.81], t(107) = 20.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.96], t(107) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.16], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(107) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(107) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.57], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.38], t(107) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(107) = 26.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.15], t(107) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.43], t(107) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.71, 17.58], t(107) = 34.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.15], t(107) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.05], t(107) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.81], t(107) = 23.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(107) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.19, 1.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(107) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(107) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.75], t(107) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(107) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.07], t(107) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(107) = 17.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.02, 2.62], t(107) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.00], t(107) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-4.14, 2.28], t(107) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.24, 15.43], t(107) = 17.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.80], t(107) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.58], t(107) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.38], t(107) = 24.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.83], t(107) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.53], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.23], t(107) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(107) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.08], t(107) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.51e-03, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.47], t(107) = 3.68e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 7.81e-04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(107) = 54.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(107) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.84], t(107) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(107) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.67], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.90], t(107) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.24], t(107) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.41e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(107) = 20.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.99], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.35], t(107) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.24], t(107) = 0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.09, 30.39], t(107) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.34], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.98], t(107) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.95, 4.07], t(107) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(107) = 29.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.74], t(107) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.89], t(107) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.19], t(107) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(107) = 34.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.86], t(107) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.25], t(107) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.18], t(107) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(107) = 23.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.50], t(107) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(107) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.35], t(107) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.25, 11.61], t(107) = 17.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.70, 0.64], t(107) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.33], t(107) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(107) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.22], t(107) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.96], t(107) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.30], t(107) = -0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.84], t(107) = 13.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(107) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(107) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [8.01e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.38], t(107) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.90, 32.69], t(107) = 16.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.04, 1.56], t(107) = -1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.62], t(107) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-7.00, 0.30], t(107) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 362.562 | 370.744 | -178.281 | 356.562 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 366.771 | 383.135 | -177.386 | 354.771 | 1.791 | 3 | 0.617 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 538.806 | 546.988 | -266.403 | 532.806 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 543.185 | 559.549 | -265.593 | 531.185 | 1.621 | 3 | 0.655 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 660.008 | 668.190 | -327.004 | 654.008 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 664.226 | 680.590 | -326.113 | 652.226 | 1.782 | 3 | 0.619 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 455.243 | 463.426 | -224.622 | 449.243 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 455.527 | 471.892 | -221.764 | 443.527 | 5.716 | 3 | 0.126 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 562.681 | 570.863 | -278.340 | 556.681 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 564.130 | 580.495 | -276.065 | 552.130 | 4.550 | 3 | 0.208 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 524.155 | 532.338 | -259.078 | 518.155 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 521.433 | 537.797 | -254.716 | 509.433 | 8.723 | 3 | 0.033 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 499.031 | 507.214 | -246.516 | 493.031 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 498.766 | 515.131 | -243.383 | 486.766 | 6.265 | 3 | 0.099 |
symptom | null | 3 | 789.808 | 797.991 | -391.904 | 783.808 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 794.350 | 810.715 | -391.175 | 782.350 | 1.458 | 3 | 0.692 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 642.197 | 650.379 | -318.099 | 636.197 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 642.602 | 658.966 | -315.301 | 630.602 | 5.595 | 3 | 0.133 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 694.645 | 702.828 | -344.323 | 688.645 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 698.638 | 715.003 | -343.319 | 686.638 | 2.007 | 3 | 0.571 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 738.909 | 747.091 | -366.455 | 732.909 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 741.084 | 757.448 | -364.542 | 729.084 | 3.826 | 3 | 0.281 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 589.618 | 597.801 | -291.809 | 583.618 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 592.621 | 608.985 | -290.310 | 580.621 | 2.998 | 3 | 0.392 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 687.248 | 695.431 | -340.624 | 681.248 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 690.841 | 707.205 | -339.420 | 678.841 | 2.408 | 3 | 0.492 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 713.707 | 721.889 | -353.853 | 707.707 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 718.070 | 734.434 | -353.035 | 706.070 | 1.637 | 3 | 0.651 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 628.387 | 636.569 | -311.193 | 622.387 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 633.273 | 649.638 | -310.637 | 621.273 | 1.113 | 3 | 0.774 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 558.854 | 567.036 | -276.427 | 552.854 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 559.103 | 575.468 | -273.552 | 547.103 | 5.750 | 3 | 0.124 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 535.382 | 543.564 | -264.691 | 529.382 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 537.456 | 553.820 | -262.728 | 525.456 | 3.926 | 3 | 0.270 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 557.110 | 565.292 | -275.555 | 551.110 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 553.182 | 569.546 | -270.591 | 541.182 | 9.928 | 3 | 0.019 |
els | null | 3 | 673.863 | 682.045 | -333.931 | 667.863 | |||
els | random | 6 | 671.530 | 687.894 | -329.765 | 659.530 | 8.333 | 3 | 0.040 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 782.412 | 790.595 | -388.206 | 776.412 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 787.084 | 803.448 | -387.542 | 775.084 | 1.329 | 3 | 0.722 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 655.589 | 663.771 | -324.794 | 649.589 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 658.778 | 675.142 | -323.389 | 646.778 | 2.811 | 3 | 0.422 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 600.669 | 608.851 | -297.335 | 594.669 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 605.186 | 621.550 | -296.593 | 593.186 | 1.483 | 3 | 0.686 |
shs | null | 3 | 770.438 | 778.620 | -382.219 | 764.438 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 774.206 | 790.570 | -381.103 | 762.206 | 2.232 | 3 | 0.526 |
esteem | null | 3 | 402.744 | 410.926 | -198.372 | 396.744 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 405.557 | 421.921 | -196.778 | 393.557 | 3.187 | 3 | 0.364 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 581.579 | 589.761 | -287.789 | 575.579 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 587.087 | 603.451 | -287.543 | 575.087 | 0.492 | 3 | 0.921 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 616.568 | 624.750 | -305.284 | 610.568 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 622.468 | 638.832 | -305.234 | 610.468 | 0.100 | 3 | 0.992 |
mlq | null | 3 | 733.430 | 741.612 | -363.715 | 727.430 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 739.169 | 755.534 | -363.585 | 727.169 | 0.260 | 3 | 0.967 |
empower | null | 3 | 601.611 | 609.793 | -297.806 | 595.611 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 605.233 | 621.598 | -296.617 | 593.233 | 2.378 | 3 | 0.498 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 525.788 | 533.970 | -259.894 | 519.788 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 530.333 | 546.697 | -259.166 | 518.333 | 1.455 | 3 | 0.693 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 557.896 | 566.078 | -275.948 | 551.896 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 556.517 | 572.882 | -272.259 | 544.517 | 7.379 | 3 | 0.061 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 581.489 | 589.671 | -287.744 | 575.489 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 581.905 | 598.269 | -284.952 | 569.905 | 5.584 | 3 | 0.134 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 600.993 | 609.175 | -297.496 | 594.993 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 601.915 | 618.280 | -294.958 | 589.915 | 5.078 | 3 | 0.166 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 593.117 | 601.299 | -293.559 | 587.117 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 591.294 | 607.658 | -289.647 | 579.294 | 7.823 | 3 | 0.050 |
sss | null | 3 | 813.274 | 821.457 | -403.637 | 807.274 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 812.632 | 828.997 | -400.316 | 800.632 | 6.642 | 3 | 0.084 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 37 | 3.11 ± 1.21 | 37 | 3.16 ± 1.21 | 0.848 | -0.055 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.19 | -0.163 | 19 | 3.49 ± 1.19 | -0.335 | 0.559 | -0.226 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 37 | 17.95 ± 2.67 | 37 | 18.08 ± 2.67 | 0.828 | -0.066 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.56 ± 2.58 | 0.187 | 19 | 18.58 ± 2.58 | -0.243 | 0.222 | -0.496 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 37 | 29.89 ± 4.99 | 37 | 30.95 ± 4.99 | 0.367 | -0.395 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.21 ± 4.38 | -0.119 | 19 | 31.56 ± 4.35 | -0.231 | 0.335 | -0.507 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 37 | 11.92 ± 1.99 | 37 | 12.35 ± 1.99 | 0.354 | -0.413 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.29 ± 1.74 | 0.603 | 19 | 12.17 ± 1.73 | 0.174 | 0.116 | -0.842 |
ras_goal | 1st | 37 | 17.49 ± 3.14 | 37 | 17.65 ± 3.14 | 0.825 | -0.089 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 2.81 | 0.503 | 19 | 18.22 ± 2.79 | -0.316 | 0.069 | -0.908 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 37 | 12.97 ± 2.73 | 37 | 13.38 ± 2.73 | 0.525 | -0.306 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.34 | -0.342 | 19 | 14.46 ± 2.32 | -0.819 | 0.168 | -0.783 |
ras_domination | 1st | 37 | 10.51 ± 2.23 | 37 | 9.46 ± 2.23 | 0.045 | 0.668 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.88 ± 2.11 | 0.401 | 19 | 10.26 ± 2.11 | -0.505 | 0.581 | -0.237 |
symptom | 1st | 37 | 31.24 ± 9.78 | 37 | 29.03 ± 9.78 | 0.333 | 0.583 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.30 ± 8.01 | -0.015 | 19 | 28.42 ± 7.90 | 0.160 | 0.260 | 0.758 |
slof_work | 1st | 37 | 22.68 ± 4.94 | 37 | 22.92 ± 4.94 | 0.833 | -0.122 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.95 ± 4.07 | 0.363 | 19 | 21.60 ± 4.02 | 0.661 | 0.787 | 0.176 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 37 | 25.51 ± 5.97 | 37 | 26.14 ± 5.97 | 0.655 | -0.213 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.46 ± 5.13 | 0.361 | 19 | 25.68 ± 5.07 | 0.154 | 0.455 | -0.419 |
satisfaction | 1st | 37 | 19.22 ± 6.93 | 37 | 22.32 ± 6.93 | 0.057 | -0.802 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.96 ± 6.15 | -0.193 | 19 | 21.82 ± 6.10 | 0.131 | 0.348 | -0.478 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 37 | 10.70 ± 3.80 | 37 | 11.70 ± 3.80 | 0.261 | -0.570 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.19 ± 3.22 | -0.276 | 19 | 11.02 ± 3.18 | 0.388 | 0.872 | 0.095 |
mhc_social | 1st | 37 | 15.16 ± 5.66 | 37 | 14.57 ± 5.66 | 0.652 | 0.202 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.25 ± 4.94 | -0.367 | 19 | 14.11 ± 4.89 | 0.155 | 0.178 | 0.723 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 37 | 21.76 ± 6.38 | 37 | 22.81 ± 6.38 | 0.479 | -0.316 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.40 ± 5.57 | -0.193 | 19 | 21.75 ± 5.52 | 0.318 | 0.714 | 0.195 |
resilisnce | 1st | 37 | 16.32 ± 4.34 | 37 | 16.92 ± 4.34 | 0.557 | -0.253 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.49 ± 3.82 | -0.068 | 19 | 17.44 ± 3.79 | -0.223 | 0.433 | -0.407 |
social_provision | 1st | 37 | 13.30 ± 3.03 | 37 | 14.16 ± 3.03 | 0.222 | -0.470 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.36 ± 2.75 | 0.510 | 19 | 14.09 ± 2.73 | 0.040 | 0.051 | -0.940 |
els_value_living | 1st | 37 | 16.65 ± 2.90 | 37 | 17.92 ± 2.90 | 0.063 | -0.869 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.92 ± 2.51 | -0.189 | 19 | 17.99 ± 2.48 | -0.048 | 0.186 | -0.729 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 37 | 11.81 ± 3.09 | 37 | 13.84 ± 3.09 | 0.006 | -1.274 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.73 ± 2.69 | -0.576 | 19 | 13.83 ± 2.66 | 0.006 | 0.201 | -0.692 |
els | 1st | 37 | 28.46 ± 5.38 | 37 | 31.76 ± 5.38 | 0.010 | -1.321 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.63 ± 4.56 | -0.467 | 19 | 31.83 ± 4.51 | -0.030 | 0.132 | -0.884 |
social_connect | 1st | 37 | 27.95 ± 9.48 | 37 | 26.24 ± 9.48 | 0.442 | 0.463 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.70 ± 7.76 | -0.206 | 19 | 26.07 ± 7.65 | 0.047 | 0.288 | 0.716 |
shs_agency | 1st | 37 | 13.84 ± 4.94 | 37 | 15.22 ± 4.94 | 0.234 | -0.547 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.13 ± 4.29 | -0.115 | 19 | 15.92 ± 4.25 | -0.280 | 0.193 | -0.712 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 37 | 16.11 ± 3.96 | 37 | 17.14 ± 3.96 | 0.268 | -0.535 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.48 ± 3.39 | -0.194 | 19 | 17.08 ± 3.36 | 0.026 | 0.577 | -0.315 |
shs | 1st | 37 | 29.95 ± 8.40 | 37 | 32.35 ± 8.40 | 0.222 | -0.600 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.61 ± 7.17 | -0.165 | 19 | 33.02 ± 7.10 | -0.167 | 0.294 | -0.602 |
esteem | 1st | 37 | 12.86 ± 1.42 | 37 | 12.41 ± 1.42 | 0.168 | 0.377 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.02 ± 1.42 | -0.127 | 19 | 12.79 ± 1.41 | -0.314 | 0.610 | 0.190 |
mlq_search | 1st | 37 | 14.84 ± 3.36 | 37 | 14.97 ± 3.36 | 0.863 | -0.061 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.44 ± 3.12 | 0.179 | 19 | 14.96 ± 3.10 | 0.005 | 0.604 | -0.235 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 37 | 13.41 ± 4.02 | 37 | 13.57 ± 4.02 | 0.863 | -0.067 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.33 ± 3.64 | 0.033 | 19 | 13.68 ± 3.62 | -0.046 | 0.762 | -0.146 |
mlq | 1st | 37 | 28.24 ± 6.68 | 37 | 28.54 ± 6.68 | 0.849 | -0.072 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.77 ± 6.10 | 0.114 | 19 | 28.63 ± 6.06 | -0.021 | 0.660 | -0.207 |
empower | 1st | 37 | 19.08 ± 3.99 | 37 | 20.00 ± 3.99 | 0.325 | -0.488 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.83 ± 3.40 | 0.133 | 19 | 19.32 ± 3.36 | 0.363 | 0.655 | -0.257 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 37 | 14.32 ± 2.54 | 37 | 15.03 ± 2.54 | 0.237 | -0.375 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.44 | -0.089 | 19 | 14.82 ± 2.43 | 0.110 | 0.674 | -0.176 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 37 | 12.22 ± 3.12 | 37 | 10.30 ± 3.12 | 0.010 | 1.177 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.71 ± 2.72 | 0.312 | 19 | 10.74 ± 2.70 | -0.270 | 0.267 | 0.595 |
sss_affective | 1st | 37 | 10.43 ± 3.66 | 37 | 9.41 ± 3.66 | 0.232 | 0.630 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.66 ± 3.08 | -0.138 | 19 | 8.55 ± 3.04 | 0.527 | 0.034 | 1.295 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 37 | 10.27 ± 3.79 | 37 | 8.76 ± 3.79 | 0.090 | 0.749 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.02 ± 3.33 | 0.123 | 19 | 8.07 ± 3.30 | 0.337 | 0.069 | 0.964 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 37 | 8.59 ± 3.88 | 37 | 7.89 ± 3.88 | 0.438 | 0.428 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.62 ± 3.23 | -0.626 | 19 | 7.11 ± 3.19 | 0.475 | 0.016 | 1.529 |
sss | 1st | 37 | 29.30 ± 10.53 | 37 | 26.05 ± 10.53 | 0.189 | 0.774 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.37 ± 8.66 | -0.257 | 19 | 23.78 ± 8.54 | 0.543 | 0.018 | 1.575 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(101.59) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)
2st
t(108.25) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.98)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(98.26) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.37)
2st
t(108.21) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.66)
ras_confidence
1st
t(83.99) = 0.91, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.36)
2st
t(108.68) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.42 to 4.13)
ras_willingness
1st
t(83.53) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.35)
2st
t(108.54) = 1.59, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.98)
ras_goal
1st
t(86.30) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)
2st
t(108.99) = 1.84, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.43)
ras_reliance
1st
t(81.67) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)
2st
t(107.55) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.52)
ras_domination
1st
t(94.19) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)
2st
t(108.41) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.71)
symptom
1st
t(78.01) = -0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.75 to 2.31)
2st
t(102.22) = -1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.94 to 2.17)
slof_work
1st
t(78.51) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)
2st
t(103.33) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.22)
slof_relationship
1st
t(81.91) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.38)
2st
t(107.72) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.01 to 4.46)
satisfaction
1st
t(85.28) = 1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.31)
2st
t(108.92) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.74)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(80.70) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)
2st
t(106.68) = -0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.87)
mhc_social
1st
t(83.36) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)
2st
t(108.48) = -1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-5.25 to 0.99)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(83.47) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.89 to 4.00)
2st
t(108.51) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.17 to 2.87)
resilisnce
1st
t(84.43) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)
2st
t(108.78) = 0.79, p = 0.433, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.37)
social_provision
1st
t(87.97) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)
2st
t(108.97) = 1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.47)
els_value_living
1st
t(82.55) = 1.88, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)
2st
t(108.11) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.65)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(83.06) = 2.82, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.46)
2st
t(108.35) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)
els
1st
t(80.80) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.79)
2st
t(106.79) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.09)
social_connect
1st
t(77.99) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.68)
2st
t(102.18) = -1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-7.53 to 2.26)
shs_agency
1st
t(82.80) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.66)
2st
t(108.24) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.92 to 4.50)
shs_pathway
1st
t(81.68) = 1.12, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.86)
2st
t(107.56) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.75)
shs
1st
t(81.35) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)
2st
t(107.30) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.12 to 6.94)
esteem
1st
t(104.13) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.20)
2st
t(108.41) = -0.51, p = 0.610, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.67)
mlq_search
1st
t(90.88) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)
2st
t(108.72) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.49)
mlq_presence
1st
t(87.60) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.02)
2st
t(108.98) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.66)
mlq
1st
t(88.69) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.38)
2st
t(108.92) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.00 to 4.72)
empower
1st
t(81.14) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.76)
2st
t(107.11) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.63)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(96.26) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.88)
2st
t(108.27) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.87)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(83.41) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.36 to -0.48)
2st
t(108.49) = -1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.75)
sss_affective
1st
t(80.03) = -1.21, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.67)
2st
t(105.88) = -2.15, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-4.06 to -0.17)
sss_behavior
1st
t(83.90) = -1.72, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.27 to 0.24)
2st
t(108.65) = -1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.96, 95% CI (-4.05 to 0.16)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(79.21) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)
2st
t(104.65) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-4.55 to -0.47)
sss
1st
t(78.30) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-8.12 to 1.63)
2st
t(102.89) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.57, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.13)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(53.82) = 1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(51.34) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.74)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.99) = 0.73, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.31)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.75) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.48)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(44.21) = 1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.72)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.79) = 2.59, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.93)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(48.70) = 1.65, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.95) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.06 to 1.85)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.20) = -2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.60 to -0.03)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.92) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.41)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.67) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.96 to 1.94)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.30) = -1.22, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.66) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.42)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.72) = -1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 1.06)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(43.22) = 0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.02)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(45.11) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(42.25) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.51) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.00)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.35) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.67)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.94) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.55 to 2.20)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.37) = 0.89, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.31)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.80) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.23)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(56.05) = 1.06, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.11)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.74) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.36)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.91) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.63)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(45.51) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.68)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.52) = -1.15, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.52)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(50.01) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.94)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.69) = 0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.48)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.96) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.95) = -1.07, p = 0.579, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.60)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.55) = -1.49, p = 0.287, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(40.10) = -1.70, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.98 to 0.43)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(52.74) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(50.43) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.84)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.63) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.97)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.41) = -1.96, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.77) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.51) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(47.97) = -1.34, p = 0.375, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.78) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.45)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.01) = -1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.63) = -1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.77)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.05) = 0.89, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.58)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.33) = 1.19, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.91)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.38) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.71)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.85) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.62) = -1.68, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.93) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.18) = 1.87, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.90)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.10) = 1.51, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.73)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.77) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.05) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.52) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.57)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.36) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.16)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.82) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.87)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.14) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.95)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.43) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.99) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.01 to 2.06)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.93)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(49.19) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.29)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.35) = -1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.73) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.59) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.34) = 2.01, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.06)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.92) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.71)